Question 1

Statement — The railway authority has decided to increase freight charges by 10% because there is a possibility of incurring losses in the current financial year.  Assumptions — I. The freight volume during the remaining period will not fall drastic…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A price rise to counter projected losses presupposes that the increase will generate enough extra revenue and that volumes will not collapse so much as to negate the gain. These are classic revenue-management assumptions.Given Data / Assumptions:Decision: +10% freight charge.Goal: reduce/avoid loss this year.I: volumes remain broadly stable (or at least not severely reduced).II: extra collections will offset the deficit materially.Concept / Approach:Revenue ≈ Price * Quantity. To raise revenue via price, either quantity must be inelastic or any drop must be modest. Further, the expected additional revenue must connect to the loss figure to justify the policy rationale.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The authority chooses price as the lever to manage deficit risk.2) This presupposes that quantity will not decline sharply (I).3) It also presupposes that incremental revenue meaningfully offsets the anticipated loss (II).4) Hence both I and II are implicit.Verification / Alternative check:If volumes plunged, revenue might fall despite higher prices; the policy would not serve its stated purpose, contradicting the decision logic.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: incomplete; both price-elasticity and offset linkage matter.Either: insufficient.Neither: contradicts the stated rationale.Common Pitfalls:Assuming perfect inelasticity; the assumption is not “no change” but “no drastic fall” sufficient to defeat revenue goals.Final Answer:Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 2

Statement — “Given that his ministry includes several hawala-tainted ministers, the Prime Minister has a moral obligation to resign,” says a politician.  Assumptions — I. The politician is not close to the Prime Minister. II. The politician wants to…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The speaker argues from a moral standpoint: because ministers are “hawala-tainted,” the Prime Minister should resign. This presupposes a commitment to moral accountability in public office, not anything about personal closeness to the PM.Given Data / Assumptions:Ministry has tainted members.Claim: PM has a moral duty to step down.I: speaker is not close to PM (irrelevant to the argument’s logic).II: speaker favors moral standards in politics (supports the moral claim).Concept / Approach:For a moral-duty claim to be advanced sincerely, the speaker must value ethical principles in political conduct. The speaker’s relationship to the PM is neither required nor implied by the reasoning.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the basis: “moral obligation.”2) Moral basis implies the speaker endorses moral norms in politics (II).3) Whether the speaker is close to the PM (I) does not affect the claim’s validity; it is not presupposed.Verification / Alternative check:Even a close ally could advocate resignation on moral grounds; thus I is not necessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: irrelevant.Either: cannot be; I is not needed.Neither: wrong because moral advocacy (II) is presupposed.Both: includes unnecessary I.Common Pitfalls:Confusing background motives or relationships with logical presuppositions.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 3

Statement — “Those who are appearing for this examination for the first time should be helped in filling the forms,” instructs the invigilating staff.  Assumptions — I. The application/answer form is somewhat complicated. II. A candidate can appear …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The instruction singles out first-time examinees for assistance. This typically presumes that (a) the form is not trivial and (b) “first time” is meaningful because candidates can be repeat takers.Given Data / Assumptions:Help is targeted at first-timers.I: forms pose difficulty.II: repeat appearances are possible.Concept / Approach:If everyone were one-time-only, “first time” would be redundant. If the form were simple, special help would be unnecessary. Thus both assumptions underlie the instruction.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify why the subset is defined: “first time.”2) Infer repeatability (II) and non-triviality (I).3) Conclude both are implicit.Verification / Alternative check:In exams allowing only one attempt, “first-time” targeting is meaningless; hence II must hold.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: incomplete rationale.Either: still incomplete.Neither: contradicts targeted help.Common Pitfalls:Overlooking the pragmatic reason why a subgroup is identified.Final Answer:Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 4

Statement — “Be humble even after gaining victory.”  Assumptions — I. Many people are already humble after winning. II. Generally, people are not humble after winning (hence the advice is needed).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Prescriptive advice typically arises to correct a common tendency. Advising winners to remain humble presupposes that post-victory arrogance is common enough to warrant guidance.Given Data / Assumptions:Advice: maintain humility after success.I: many already are humble (makes advice redundant; not needed).II: people tend not to be humble after victory (explains why advice is useful).Concept / Approach:The rationale for an advisory statement is to address a perceived deficit. Hence II, not I, is presupposed.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the problematic behavior targeted by the advice.2) Infer that the opposite behavior is prevalent (lack of humility).3) Conclude that only II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:If most people were already humble, the need for such advice would be minimal; thus I is not necessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: contradicts the advisory rationale.Either: cannot be; I does not follow.Neither: wrong; some presupposition must justify the advice.Both: includes unnecessary I.Common Pitfalls:Reading the advice as a mere slogan; in logic tests, infer the minimal condition that makes the advice sensible.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 5

Statement — The income-tax rules need to be amended so that people have greater incentive to declare their actual wealth.  Assumptions — I. The current income-tax rules are inadequate or sub-optimal. II. Some people do not declare their actual wealt…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Policy-change statements usually presuppose (a) that the status quo is inadequate and (b) a specific behavioral problem exists that the change aims to address. Both are present here: current rules are not producing truthful declarations, and amendments are proposed to fix that.Given Data / Assumptions:Proposal: amend rules to increase incentives.I: current rules are not proper/effective enough.II: under-reporting or non-declaration exists.Concept / Approach:A remedy presupposes a malady. Without II, there is nothing to fix. Without I, there is no reason to change rules.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the target behavior: accurate wealth declaration.2) Infer the present failure (II) and inadequacy of rules (I).3) Conclude both assumptions are implicit.Verification / Alternative check:If everyone already declared accurately (¬II), amending rules for “more incentive” would be pointless, contradicting the statement.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: incomplete rationale for reform.Either: insufficient.Neither: contradicts the call for amendment.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “improper” with “illegal.” Here “not proper” means not adequate or effective.Final Answer:Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 6

Statement — The General Administration Department allows employees to take lunch at any half-hour slot between 1:00 pm and 2:30 pm, effective henceforth.  Assumptions — I. Employees will likely appreciate and use staggered lunch slots. II. Staggerin…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Shifting from a fixed lunch break to staggered slots typically aims to maintain continuity of operations while offering flexibility to staff. The policy makes sense if employees actually use different slots and the organization benefits through uninterrupted service.Given Data / Assumptions:Policy: any half-hour slot between 1:00 pm and 2:30 pm.I: employees will distribute themselves across slots.II: staggering avoids full downtime.Concept / Approach:The outcome (continuous work) depends on the behavior (staggered uptake). Both assumptions jointly support the policy’s purpose and expected benefits.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify goal: prevent total suspension of work at lunch time.2) This requires employees to actually choose different slots (I).3) If they do, overlapping staffing keeps work going (II).4) Hence both assumptions are implicit.Verification / Alternative check:If everyone still took lunch at the same time, the policy would fail to deliver continuity, undermining its rationale.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: incomplete to justify the policy benefits.Either: insufficient.Neither: contradicts the policy logic.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring the behavioral response needed for policy success.Final Answer:Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 7

Statement — The Government has decided not to reduce the prices of petroleum products despite a significant fall in international crude prices.  Assumptions — I. International crude prices may rise again in the near future. II. Maintaining current p…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Choosing not to pass through a cost decrease suggests caution about future volatility and a desire to build fiscal/price buffers. Such a stance presupposes a risk of price rebound and a policy of smoothing prices over time.Given Data / Assumptions:Observed: crude prices have fallen significantly.Decision: retail prices unchanged.I: crude may rise again soon.II: holding prices now helps withstand later increases.Concept / Approach:Price-smoothing policy logic: do not reduce retail prices fully when input costs fall, so as to avoid sharp hikes when costs rebound; use the margin as a buffer or for fiscal needs.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the latent risk (future crude increase).2) Connect the decision to risk mitigation via buffer (II).3) Both assumptions are necessary to rationalize the choice.Verification / Alternative check:If crude were expected to keep falling and buffers were unnecessary, a reduction would be more plausible; the decision contradicts that, so I and II support it.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: incomplete articulation of risk and buffer.Either: insufficient.Neither: contradicts observed caution.Common Pitfalls:Confusing political motives with logical presuppositions; the question asks what must be assumed, not why the government “should” do it.Final Answer:Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 8

Statement — The Government has appealed to all citizens to pay income tax honestly and to file returns reflecting true income levels so that development activities can be carried out.  Assumptions — I. People may respond to the appeal and start payi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A public appeal by the Government to “pay honestly” and “file true returns” indicates an attempt to change taxpayer behavior and, through that change, to strengthen public finances for development. Such messages typically rest on two intertwined beliefs: that people will respond (at least partially) to the appeal and that improved compliance will raise aggregate collections.Given Data / Assumptions:An official appeal urges truthful reporting and payment.Assumption I: some taxpayers may change behavior in response.Assumption II: improved compliance will meaningfully increase total revenue.Concept / Approach:Statement–assumption problems ask what must be presupposed for the statement to be a sensible course of action. If appeals never affect behavior, issuing them would be pointless. Likewise, if truthful filing did not increase revenue, the appeal would not be framed as enabling development spending. Hence both assumptions undergird the statement’s rationale.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the intended causal chain: appeal -> better compliance -> higher collections -> development capacity.2) For the first link to hold, some citizens must respond positively (I).3) For the second link to hold, higher honesty must translate into larger inflows (II).4) Therefore both assumptions are implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Even if only a portion of taxpayers respond, the appeal still makes sense. Collections need not skyrocket; a “considerable” rise relative to baseline suffices. Both conditions align with the statement’s purpose.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: incomplete; without II, revenue and development aims are not supported.Only II: incomplete; without I, there is no reason to expect change.Either: insufficient because both links are needed.Neither: contradicts the very idea of issuing a public appeal.Common Pitfalls:Assuming the appeal must guarantee universal compliance. The assumption is only that compliance rises enough to matter.Final Answer:Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 9

Statement — The school authority will increase the number of students per classroom to seventy from the next academic session in order to bridge the income–expenditure gap to a large extent.  Assumptions — I. The extra fee income from additional stu…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Increasing class size is a revenue-side measure. It makes sense only if (a) the demand exists to fill the additional seats and (b) the incremental fee revenue per class materially reduces the budget shortfall. Otherwise, the plan either fails operationally (empty seats) or financially (insufficient revenue gain).Given Data / Assumptions:Policy: raise class size to 70.Goal: bridge income–expenditure gap to a large extent.I: extra fee revenue per class is financially adequate.II: admissions demand will meet the higher capacity.Concept / Approach:For policy coherence, both market feasibility (II) and financial effectiveness (I) must be presupposed. If either fails, the stated outcome becomes unlikely, undermining the decision’s rationale.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Link decision (bigger class size) to intended effect (closing the gap).2) Effect requires filled seats (II) and adequate per-seat revenue (I).3) Therefore both assumptions are implicit.Verification / Alternative check:If the market is thin and few additional students enroll, or fees are too low, the gap will persist—contradicting the policy’s goal.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: each alone is insufficient.Either: still incomplete.Neither: contradicts the motivation expressed.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring capacity constraints (rooms, teachers). The assumption is minimal: enough demand and sufficient marginal revenue.Final Answer:Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 10

Statement — The driver of a large truck pulled the emergency brakes to avoid hitting an auto-rickshaw that suddenly cut in front of the truck.  Assumptions — I. The auto-rickshaw driver may steer away from the oncoming truck and clear the path. II. …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Emergency braking is an immediate evasive action taken by the driver of a heavy vehicle to prevent a collision. The act itself presupposes the belief that braking can reduce speed sufficiently—possibly to zero—in the available distance to avoid impact. It does not require any particular expectation about the other vehicle’s steering response, which is outside the truck driver’s control.Given Data / Assumptions:Situation: an auto-rickshaw abruptly enters the truck’s path.Action: the truck driver applies emergency brakes.I: expectation about the auto-rickshaw’s evasive steering.II: expectation that braking can avert or mitigate collision by stopping in time.Concept / Approach:Statement–assumption tasks look for what must be true for the stated action to be rational. Braking presupposes that braking helps; it does not require any assumption about the other driver’s forthcoming actions. Even if the auto does nothing, braking still reduces risk and impact severity. Hence only II is necessary.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Map action to intended effect: emergency braking -> rapid deceleration -> avoid impact.2) This sequence presupposes stopping possibility in time (II).3) The action does not hinge on the auto’s steering (I), which is independent and not necessary to justify braking.Verification / Alternative check:Even where the auto cannot steer, braking still makes sense to minimize or avoid collision. Therefore I is not required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: unrelated to the agent’s own action.Either: incorrect; I is not needed.Neither: incorrect; II must hold to rationalize the action.Both: includes unnecessary I.Common Pitfalls:Attributing assumptions about third-party behavior when the focal action is self-contained.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 11

Statement — The doctor warned the patient to stop consuming alcohol immediately if he wanted to be cured of the ailment and live longer.  Assumptions — I. The patient may follow the doctor’s advice and stop drinking alcohol. II. If the patient stops…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A medical warning links a behavioral change (alcohol cessation) with clinical outcomes (cure prospects and longevity). For the warning to be meaningful, the physician must assume both that the patient could comply and that compliance causally improves treatment effectiveness and prognosis.Given Data / Assumptions:Directive: stop alcohol to get cured and live longer.I: patient compliance is plausible.II: stopping alcohol is medically efficacious for this ailment.Concept / Approach:Without I, issuing advice is futile. Without II, advice would not be clinically grounded. Therefore both assumptions are necessary for the warning to make rational sense in context.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify outcome chain: cessation -> improved treatability -> cure/longer life.2) For chain to be actionable, patient must be able/willing to comply (I).3) For chain to be valid, cessation must aid cure (II).4) Hence both are implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Even partial adherence can support II’s intent; the assumption is not 100% compliance but nonzero responsiveness paired with medical benefit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: lacks clinical link.Only II: ignores feasibility of compliance.Either/Neither: do not support the stated medical rationale.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “may be able to cure” with guaranteed cure; medical statements often reflect improved probability, not certainty.Final Answer:Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 12

Statement — The company chairman urged employees to refrain from making long personal calls during working hours in order to boost productivity.  Assumptions — I. A majority of employees will respond positively to the chairman’s appeal. II. Most emp…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Management advisories are issued with the belief that employees will modify behavior sufficiently to realize the intended benefit (here, better productivity). An assumption that most will ignore the appeal contradicts the purpose of making it.Given Data / Assumptions:Appeal: avoid long personal calls during work.Goal: boost productivity.I: many employees will comply, at least partially.II: most will not comply (negates the rationale).Concept / Approach:For an appeal to be instrumentally rational, the issuer must expect a meaningful compliance rate. Expecting widespread noncompliance would undercut the appeal’s utility, making II an implausible presupposition of the statement.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Link appeal to intended productivity gains.2) Gains require significant compliance (I).3) Assuming the opposite (II) would render the appeal ineffective and purposeless.Verification / Alternative check:Even partial compliance among a majority can yield noticeable productivity improvement, aligning with the chairman’s objective.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II: contradicts the very reason to appeal.Either: cannot be; the two assumptions are mutually inconsistent.Neither: wrong because some expected compliance must exist.Both: logically inconsistent.Common Pitfalls:Equating “majority will respond” with “everyone will comply.” The necessary assumption is not perfection, but meaningful response.Final Answer:Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 13

Statement — The local cultural club decided to organize a musical event to raise money for constructing its club building.  Assumptions — I. Local residents may not allow the club to organize a musical event in the locality. II. The money raised thr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Fundraisers are planned on the belief that they will generate meaningful funds toward a stated objective. The decision to host a musical event presupposes expected adequacy of proceeds, not a presumption of community obstruction. If anything, the decision implicitly expects feasibility (permission/acceptance), not rejection.Given Data / Assumptions:Action: organize a musical event.Goal: raise construction funds.I: residents may not allow the event (negative and counter to feasibility).II: proceeds will be substantial enough to initiate the project.Concept / Approach:Only the financial adequacy assumption is necessary. Assuming community denial would defeat the plan and is not required by the decision; rather, implicit feasibility (permission) is the minimal presupposition. Thus II alone is implicit.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Connect the event to the funding target.2) The connection works only if expected proceeds are meaningful (II).3) The plan does not require presuming non-approval (I); it implicitly presumes approval or manageable logistics.Verification / Alternative check:If the club expected denial, it would not plan an event as the fund-raising vehicle. Hence I is not implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: contradicts feasibility.Either/Both: wrongly include I.Neither: wrong because some financial adequacy must be assumed.Common Pitfalls:Reading in extraneous obstacles; the test asks for the minimal assumptions that make the decision rational.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 14

Statement — The traffic police have installed large notice boards at all major city junctions warning drivers: “Do not use a cell phone while driving, or your license will be impounded.”  Assumptions — I. Drivers may ignore the warning and continue …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Public warnings paired with penalties function both as deterrents and enforcement notices. For such a warning to be credible, authorities must be able to enforce it. The assumption that drivers will ignore the warning is not necessary; the notice can be aimed at prevention, not merely punishment after noncompliance.Given Data / Assumptions:Intervention: visible notices with a penalty threat.I: drivers will ignore the warning.II: police can detect violations and impound licenses.Concept / Approach:The essential presupposition is enforceability (II). The notice must carry operational credibility. Whether some drivers ignore the warning is not a required assumption for putting up the warning; ideally, all would comply. Thus I is not necessary.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the deterrence mechanism: threaten impound to reduce phone use while driving.2) Deterrence requires real enforcement capacity (II).3) The statement does not require assuming drivers will ignore the rule (I).Verification / Alternative check:Even if most drivers comply, the notice remains sensible; enforcement readiness preserves deterrence credibility.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: unnecessary and pessimistic.Either/Both: wrongly include I.Neither: wrong because enforcement capacity must be assumed.Common Pitfalls:Confusing the existence of a penalty with an assumption about widespread violation.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 15

Statement — The State Government has decided to appoint four thousand primary-school teachers in the next financial year.  Assumptions — I. There are enough schools and sanctioned posts to accommodate four thousand additional primary teachers. II. E…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A hiring plan of this scale presupposes system capacity—vacancies, infrastructure, and budget—to absorb the recruits. It does not presuppose applicant apathy due to distrust; indeed, the plan assumes that qualified candidates will apply and positions will be filled as intended.Given Data / Assumptions:Decision: recruit 4000 primary teachers.I: sufficient school capacity/sanctioned posts exist.II: candidates may not apply, suspecting non-appointment.Concept / Approach:For the decision to be meaningful, the system must be able to place the teachers (I). The pessimistic II undermines the decision’s feasibility and is not required; rather, the plan presumes adequate applicant interest.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Link hiring decision to education-system capacity.2) Capacity presupposition is necessary (I).3) Applicant disinterest (II) is not necessary and counters the plan’s intent.Verification / Alternative check:Teacher job markets typically have many applicants; the barrier is budgeted posts, not interest—which aligns with I being the operative assumption.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II: contradicts the decision logic.Either/Both: wrongly include II.Neither: incorrect; at least I must hold.Common Pitfalls:Interpreting assumptions as speculative fears rather than necessary presuppositions for the stated action.Final Answer:Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 16

Statement — The next meeting of the governing body of Arihant Publication will be held after one year.  Assumptions — I. No meeting of the governing body will take place before the completion of one year. II. Arihant Publication will continue to fun…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Scheduling the “next meeting after one year” conveys two presuppositions: that no intervening meeting will occur (otherwise the announced meeting would not be “next”), and that the organization will continue operations such that a meeting after one year is meaningful to plan.Given Data / Assumptions:Information: next meeting scheduled one year hence.I: there will be no earlier governing-body meeting.II: the organization will remain active to hold that meeting.Concept / Approach:“Next” sets a temporal order asserting exclusivity of earlier slots. Planning a meeting also presupposes organizational continuity. Both are necessary for the statement to be coherent and informative.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Interpret “next meeting” as the immediate subsequent one.2) Therefore, no meeting can occur earlier (I).3) For scheduling to matter, the organization must exist and function after one year (II).Verification / Alternative check:If a meeting were held earlier, the announced one would not be the “next”; if the organization ceased, the announcement would be moot. Both contradictions confirm I and II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: incomplete.Either: insufficient; both are needed.Neither: contradicts the statement’s meaning.Common Pitfalls:Misreading “next” as merely “a future” meeting; in formal reasoning, “next” implies the immediate subsequent instance.Final Answer:Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 17

Statement — “Please do not lean out of the running bus,” reads a notice posted inside a tourist bus.  Assumptions — I. Leaning out of a moving bus is dangerous. II. Passengers are likely to pay attention to and follow such safety notices.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Safety notices inside public transport aim to prevent harm. Posting “do not lean out” presupposes that the behavior is risky and that notices have at least some deterrent effect on passenger conduct. Otherwise, the sign would be unnecessary or ineffective.Given Data / Assumptions:Notice content: avoid leaning out of a moving bus.I: the behavior poses danger (injury risk from poles, vehicles, trees, or sudden swerves).II: passengers will attend to and obey such notices to some degree.Concept / Approach:For the notice to be rational, the operator must believe both that a real hazard exists and that communication mitigates it by influencing behavior. Therefore both assumptions are implicit in the act of posting the warning.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the hazard—exposure outside the vehicle while in motion.2) Conclude that the notice presupposes risk (I).3) Conclude that the notice presupposes efficacy of safety messaging (II).Verification / Alternative check:Even partial compliance lowers risk, validating II. The ubiquity of such notices indicates that operators deem the behavior dangerous, validating I.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: incomplete; both risk and behavioral response are necessary.Either: insufficient.Neither: contradicts the rationale for the notice.Common Pitfalls:Assuming a notice requires perfect compliance; it only assumes some meaningful effect.Final Answer:Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 18

Statement — “If it does not rain throughout this month, most farmers would be in trouble this year.” Assumptions: I. Timely rain is essential for farming. II. Most farmers are generally dependent on rainfall.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The problem belongs to Statement–Assumption. We are given a managerial/policy-style statement about rain and farmers, and two candidate assumptions. In this question type, an assumption is an unstated belief taken for granted by the speaker for the statement to make sense. We must test which assumptions are necessary, not merely desirable.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: If there is no rain this month, most farmers will be in trouble this year.Assumption I: Timely rain is essential for farming.Assumption II: Most farmers are generally dependent on rains.Concept / Approach:When a statement predicts widespread trouble for farmers specifically due to lack of rain in a key month, it presupposes that rain is a critical input (timeliness matters) and that a large fraction of farmers rely on rain rather than assured irrigation. If either were untrue, the worry would not follow.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Connect cause and effect: “no rain this month” (cause) → “most farmers in trouble” (effect).2) For the effect to hold, rain must be an essential and time-sensitive input → supports Assumption I.3) The statement claims “most farmers” would suffer, implying broad dependence on rainfall → supports Assumption II.4) If farmers had reliable irrigation or rain were not essential, the statement’s fear would be exaggerated or baseless.Verification / Alternative check:Imagine a scenario where rain is not essential (greenhouses, drip with reservoirs). The statement would collapse. Likewise, if only a small minority depended on rain, “most” would not be in trouble. Hence both assumptions are required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: misses the breadth implied by “most farmers.” Only II: ignores the time-critical nature of rain. Either I or II: both are independently necessary. Neither: contradicts the causal force of the statement.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “supportive facts” with “assumptions.” Here, necessity is key: without each assumption, the prediction loses force.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit.

Question 19

Statement — A advises B: “If you want to study English, join Institute Y.” Assumptions: I. B will listen to A’s advice. II. Institute Y provides good coaching for English.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Advice implies that the recommender believes the suggested action leads to the desired goal. We must detect which unstated beliefs are required for A’s advice to be meaningful and reasonable.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: “If you want to study English, join Institute Y.”Assumption I: B will necessarily listen to A.Assumption II: Institute Y offers good English coaching (i.e., is effective for the purpose).Concept / Approach:A’s advice presupposes that Institute Y is suitable for learning English; otherwise, the advice is pointless. However, the act of advising does not require the speaker to assume compliance; one can advise regardless of whether the listener will actually follow it.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Core intent: “Join Y to study English.”2) Necessary belief: Y must be capable of providing good English coaching (Assumption II).3) Compliance (Assumption I) is not a prerequisite for issuing advice; advice can be offered even if the speaker doubts it will be followed.Verification / Alternative check:Replace Y with a poor institute; the advice loses sense. Keep Y effective but imagine B ignores advice; the statement remains a coherent recommendation.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: compliance is not necessary. Either: both are not interchangeable necessities. Both: over-commits. Neither: conflicts with the need for Y’s suitability.Common Pitfalls:Equating “advice” with “assumed obedience.” Assumptions test necessity for the statement’s meaning, not its success in practice.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 20

Statement — The leader of the main opposition party asserted that the call for “chakka jam” turned out to be a great success across the entire state. Assumptions: I. In the future, people will support the main opposition party. II. People were proba…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Political statements that claim success for a strike (chakka jam) hinge on present participation and acceptance of the cause. We must separate assumptions about current conviction from speculative future outcomes.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: The strike call “was a great success in the entire state.”Assumption I: People will support the party in the future.Assumption II: People were convinced about the reason for the strike, enabling participation.Concept / Approach:To label the strike successful now, it must be assumed that people accepted its rationale sufficiently to cooperate today. Forecasting future party support is not required to assess current success.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Success of a strike today depends on present buy-in, not future voting preferences.2) Therefore Assumption II (public conviction about the cause) is necessary.3) Assumption I (future support) is speculative and not essential to the assertion of “success.”Verification / Alternative check:It is possible that people supported the strike’s issue but will not support the party later. The statement about success still stands, showing I is unnecessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: ignores present conviction. Either: both are not interchangeable. Both: adds unnecessary speculation. Neither: contradicts the logic of current success.Common Pitfalls:Confusing present success with long-term popularity. Assumptions must be tied to the statement’s immediate claim.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions

Questions

Practice smarter